Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AAls
Maths is actually a very creative subject. You just don't really see much of it if you're only exposed to gcse/ a level maths.
Saying it has no creativity is an exaggeration. But to say it has the same amounts as a humanities subject is deluded. The problem is people mistake a question being difficult (or taking longer) for a question that requires creativity to solve.
At the end of the day you're still applying a set of principles in order to answer the question. A lot of the times, all these "various methods" to solve a problem are effectively one method slightly alerted. If you want a very maths intensive subject that relies on creativity then you take physics. But pure maths? No. Humanities trumps STEM overall in that department.
Original post by Lawliettt
Saying it has no creativity is an exaggeration. But to say it has the same amounts as a humanities subject is deluded. The problem is people mistake a question being difficult (or taking longer) for a question that requires creativity to solve.
At the end of the day you're still applying a set of principles in order to answer the question. A lot of the times, all these "various methods" to solve a problem are effectively one method slightly alerted. If you want a very maths intensive subject that relies on creativity then you take physics. But pure maths? No. Humanities trumps STEM overall in that department.
At the end of the day you're still applying a set of principles in order to answer the question. A lot of the times, all these "various methods" to solve a problem are effectively one method slightly alerted. If you want a very maths intensive subject that relies on creativity then you take physics. But pure maths? No. Humanities trumps STEM overall in that department.
A lot of people seem to think maths is just learn a principle then you can easily apply it. I agree as this is the case a lot of the time in A levels. However if you give an average A grade a level student a maths olympiad question they would probs struggle because they are used to thinking systematically and not creatively.
If maths is introduced this way at an early stage, most people wouldn't be able to do it...
Let's just say that practically, you may be right and there are a number of points I agree with. However, there are so many bits to a good life that's intangible and cannot be quantified by things like money, career prospects, etc. Also, it does not mean that a course in classics is any less rigorous or enriching than an engineering course. The only reason why STEM subjects look superior to the humanities in this present age is because of the heavy emphasis placed on it since the period of the industrial revolution. (that was when science and tech started developing on a large scale and expertise in these areas were very much sought after)
Also, you're forgetting law. Law is under the humanities and top lawyers earn huge sums as well.
Also, you're forgetting law. Law is under the humanities and top lawyers earn huge sums as well.
Original post by JamesN88
My point is that broadcasting your belief in your superiority via comments littered with grammatical errors isn't very convincing to say the least.
My point is its the internet so no one cares
Original post by Comus
By all means you can argue that X is better that Y because it better meets criterion Z and rely on objective data to demonstrate this: and such an argument might be very convincing. It shows that X is objectively better at meeting criterion Z but it does not show that X is objectively better than Y in a general sense. And your central claim was that "STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees" - in a general sense.
Again, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof, but I'll bite. If such things could be properly defined and measured then one might look at, say, empathy or life satisfaction. But I'm not going to assert that such criteria is somehow objectively chosen.
Again, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof, but I'll bite. If such things could be properly defined and measured then one might look at, say, empathy or life satisfaction. But I'm not going to assert that such criteria is somehow objectively chosen.
Well the burden was always on you. You use empathy and life satisfaction as alternative criteria but they are so subjective that you simply cannot make any conclusion. One may find science more satisfying than sociology, others wont agree. To objectify that, we can possibly say that STEM is more useful than non STEM in real life, and that is hardly arguable.
The point is you cannot possibly use any criteria that is even vaguely linked to personal preference as it is very subjective which contradicts my original statement which is STEM is objectively better. The fact that you didnt provide better criteria or suggest any improvements suggests to me that my criteria is as rigid as possible.
Original post by Trapz99
Art and music are actually hard as well because they require creativity which is very hard to learn. A person doing a STEM subject would find it difficult to do a creative subject, and vice versa.
Not true at all, just because I like science and maths and would like to pursue it as a career, doesn't mean I can't play/compose music or draw to a high standard if I wanted to.
I don't know why OP posted this anyway, people are going to do whatever they want with their lives since nobody thinks exactly the same. Seems like a poor attempt to troll.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Well the burden was always on you.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
You use empathy and life satisfaction as alternative criteria but they are so subjective that you simply cannot make any conclusion. One may find science more satisfying than sociology, others wont agree.
You will notice that I qualified my suggestion with the assumption that such things could be properly defined and measured, your use of 'intelligence' as a criteria suffers from similar problems.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
To objectify that, we can possibly say that STEM is more useful than non STEM in real life, and that is hardly arguable.
What is use? What is usefulness? How does one adequately compre different uses? How does one give weight to each use? Why is usefullness desirable?
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
The point is you cannot possibly use any criteria that is even vaguely linked to personal preference as it is very subjective which contradicts my original statement which is STEM is objectively better.
The point is you cannot possibly use any criteria that is even vaguely linked to personal preference as it is very subjective which contradicts my original statement which is STEM is objectively better.
Okay then, why is a high salary objectively desirable? Why is intelligence objectively desireable? Why is a career objectively desireable?
Original post by Broscientist
How can you make the argument that there is little creativity in mathematics, yet you admit that branches of science spawned by mathematics such as computer science and physics are creative? Very inconsistent line of thought.
How can you make the argument that there is little creativity in mathematics, yet you admit that branches of science spawned by mathematics such as computer science and physics are creative? Very inconsistent line of thought.
It's not difficult imo.
Tl;dr -
Learning maths = little creativity (and difficulty if you're being relative)
Applying maths = slightly more
Longer version:
I don't know where the everyone on TSR got the idea that a normal Comp sci course is insanely maths intensive but it's not true (unless you're specifically applying for computational mathematics). The area in comp sci that requires creativity is programming.
The areas in physics that require creativity are theory, dissertations and using maths we know to understand new real world concepts.
None of these things are present in pure maths. And I'm talking about university level. You're literally taught maths by doing tedious yet similar questions over and over again. Of course the questions get harder and new concepts are brought in. But how you approach the subject stays the same. By being repetitive. Unlike with humanities where hardly any of their course has objective answers.
Mathematics also has one of the highest pass rates in the UK. I recall reading a stat the other day saying roughly 84% of maths graduates get at least a 2:1. And I know at A level it has one of the highest proportion of A*s per candidate. Of course this doesn't factor in people who drop out. But what it demonstrates is those who are hardworking enough to finish the course and do enough questions will do well. The humanities do significantly worse (I think it was around 65%? I'll try and find the link) since it's harder to do well in them.
Original post by Broscientist
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of a subject and everything to do with the OBJECTIVE nature of the subject.
If you successfully prove a mathematical proof, it is the same as a DNA test. It is easily verifiable and TRUTH trumps OPINIONS/FEELINGS. You can not argue with the truth, regardless if you like it or not, regardless if you do not like how 'this' or 'that' has been written.
Whereas if you are examining some humanities essay, if you have 50 assessors, chances are you are going to get 50 different opinions.
Again, just my two cents.
If you successfully prove a mathematical proof, it is the same as a DNA test. It is easily verifiable and TRUTH trumps OPINIONS/FEELINGS. You can not argue with the truth, regardless if you like it or not, regardless if you do not like how 'this' or 'that' has been written.
Whereas if you are examining some humanities essay, if you have 50 assessors, chances are you are going to get 50 different opinions.
Again, just my two cents.
You don't understand how humanities essays are marked. It doesn't matter whether or not the assessor agrees with your opinion or not; it's all about how you put your ideas across and assess evidence. With maths, it's very cookie-cutter, right or wrong, no in between. The reason why so many people get high grades in maths is because it is formulaic and repetitive.
OP doesn't understand what objective means.
Original post by Abstract_Prism
OP doesn't understand what objective means.
http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1514978/cbi_education_and_skills_survey_2012.pdf
In the UK, 80% of employers don’t have specific subject requirements for their graduate roles, according to CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2012 (above). But the subject you choose does make a difference to them. 72% say that they are on the lookout for graduates from certain subjects (compared with 46% who say degree class is one of the most important criteria). Fully 50% of employers say that they are looking for graduates from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degrees. 17% want students with Business degrees. Only 2% want linguists, 2% social scientists, and 1% arts students.
Objectively, that suggests that quantitative STEM subjects give you far more career flexibility and hiring prospects than other courses.
Please retort accordingly.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Lawliettt
Engineering is slightly different. The engineering branch with the most creativity is civil imo. But there's no valid way compare creativity in it to that in a humanitiy so calling one better is pointless.
Engineering can be hugely creative. During my degree, we were very often encouraged to come up with different solutions to problems, not just the "default" answer. Anything that solves the problem.
Original post by BizzStrut
http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1514978/cbi_education_and_skills_survey_2012.pdf
In the UK, 80% of employers don’t have specific subject requirements for their graduate roles, according to CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2012 (above). But the subject you choose does make a difference to them. 72% say that they are on the lookout for graduates from certain subjects (compared with 46% who say degree class is one of the most important criteria). Fully 50% of employers say that they are looking for graduates from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degrees. 17% want students with Business degrees. Only 2% want linguists, 2% social scientists, and 1% arts students.
Objectively, that suggests that quantitative STEM subjects give you far more career flexibility and hiring prospects than other courses.
Please retort accordingly.
In the UK, 80% of employers don’t have specific subject requirements for their graduate roles, according to CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2012 (above). But the subject you choose does make a difference to them. 72% say that they are on the lookout for graduates from certain subjects (compared with 46% who say degree class is one of the most important criteria). Fully 50% of employers say that they are looking for graduates from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degrees. 17% want students with Business degrees. Only 2% want linguists, 2% social scientists, and 1% arts students.
Objectively, that suggests that quantitative STEM subjects give you far more career flexibility and hiring prospects than other courses.
Please retort accordingly.
Damn, I've always heard it was 70%.. Even more reason not to fret too much about degree choice.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
By looking at uni rankings
I see, so if I studied Maths at Manchester for example, it wouldn't count as a STEM degree ????? huh?
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
This forum has been quick to dismiss people who claim that STEM and non-STEM subjects are on the same level. Well let me break it to people who study non-STEM subjects; STEM is superior in every aspect.
Here's why:
- STEM grads earn way more money than non STEM grads(ST and LT)
- STEM students have better grades than non STEM students (on average)
- STEM grads have greater career prospects than non STEM grads
- STEM grads are more intelligent since their degrees need more thinking ability.
- In the future, STEM grads will be more in demand since computers and AI can easily replace the jobs of a non STEM grad.
- Careers such as high finance actually have a preference of STEM (and econ/finance) over other non STEM grads. Why? Because STEM grads have a more respectable degree.
- STEM grads can do the job a non STEM grad does (perhaps with a little bit of training)
- Many non STEM degrees such as languages can be done by STEM students so long as they choose the appropriate modules at uni.
Lets be honest, the people who say "STEM and non STEM degrees are equal!" are those who do non STEM degrees or A levels and are very insecure. This has now led to STEM students and non STEM students degrees look equal, which is an insult to STEM students. A maths grad and english grad are not equal, sorry.
(Economics/Finance are also basically STEM since they have a lot of maths in their degrees)
Here's why:
- STEM grads earn way more money than non STEM grads(ST and LT)
- STEM students have better grades than non STEM students (on average)
- STEM grads have greater career prospects than non STEM grads
- STEM grads are more intelligent since their degrees need more thinking ability.
- In the future, STEM grads will be more in demand since computers and AI can easily replace the jobs of a non STEM grad.
- Careers such as high finance actually have a preference of STEM (and econ/finance) over other non STEM grads. Why? Because STEM grads have a more respectable degree.
- STEM grads can do the job a non STEM grad does (perhaps with a little bit of training)
- Many non STEM degrees such as languages can be done by STEM students so long as they choose the appropriate modules at uni.
Lets be honest, the people who say "STEM and non STEM degrees are equal!" are those who do non STEM degrees or A levels and are very insecure. This has now led to STEM students and non STEM students degrees look equal, which is an insult to STEM students. A maths grad and english grad are not equal, sorry.
(Economics/Finance are also basically STEM since they have a lot of maths in their degrees)
'STEM is objectively superior to non-STEM according to these subjective criteria i invented'
try again
Original post by Broscientist
The reason why it is harder to get a high mark on a humanities essay is because the subjects tend to be incredibly subjective and there is no definitive answer per say. This also means you can ******** your way through a lot of things with minimal reading (especially in degrees like business, marketing etc.).
Uh, no? It's more difficult because there is no definitive answer. You need to present ideas and thoughts appropriately and concisely. You need to be creative in your approach. No one can tell you 'Do it this way, or you haven't done it right.' You also couldn't get through on 'minimal reading'. You've made that up. You have experience in Humanities degrees, do you? Speaking from experience? Didn't think so.
Original post by Broscientist
The reason why it is easier to get a high mark in maths (and other STEM subjects) is because you either know the material and know how to apply it or you do not. You can not ******** your way through a maths exam as you can in a business/marketing essay. If you can solve the problem, you solve it.
End of story.
End of story.
So in other words, it's easier because there are definitive answers, and you find those answers using cookie-cutter, repetitive methods with no creativity. Just go through the motions and you'll find the answer. Go through step 1, step 2, step 3, etc. Easy as pie.
Original post by Broscientist
The reason why it is harder to get a high mark on a humanities essay is because the subjects tend to be incredibly subjective and there is no definitive answer per say. This also means you can ******** your way through a lot of things with minimal reading (especially in degrees like business, marketing etc.).
The reason why it is easier to get a high mark in maths (and other STEM subjects) is because you either know the material and know how to apply it or you do not. You can not ******** your way through a maths exam as you can in a business/marketing essay. If you can solve the problem, you solve it.
End of story.
The reason why it is easier to get a high mark in maths (and other STEM subjects) is because you either know the material and know how to apply it or you do not. You can not ******** your way through a maths exam as you can in a business/marketing essay. If you can solve the problem, you solve it.
End of story.
give me three years of past papers and solutions two days before the exam and i'll get in a 2.1 in any maths module you like
Original post by Implication
'STEM is objectively superior to non-STEM according to these subjective criteria i invented'
try again
try again
I chuckled hard.
Original post by Broscientist
The reason why it is harder to get a high mark on a humanities essay is because the subjects tend to be incredibly subjective and there is no definitive answer per say. This also means you can ******** your way through a lot of things with minimal reading (especially in degrees like business, marketing etc.).
The reason why it is easier to get a high mark in maths (and other STEM subjects) is because you either know the material and know how to apply it or you do not. You can not ******** your way through a maths exam as you can in a business/marketing essay. If you can solve the problem, you solve it.
End of story.
The reason why it is easier to get a high mark in maths (and other STEM subjects) is because you either know the material and know how to apply it or you do not. You can not ******** your way through a maths exam as you can in a business/marketing essay. If you can solve the problem, you solve it.
End of story.
Yep. The grading of humanities has a lower bound (you can ******** enough to pass) but also an upper bound (you will have to be a genius to reach 90+ marks, while technical non-essay based subjects found in STEM have no upper or lower bound, meaning that you don't need to be the next Einstein to hit 100/100 in an assignment but you won't be able to ******** your way to a pass.
Original post by Juichiro
Yep. The grading of humanities has a lower bound (you can ******** enough to pass) but also an upper bound (you will have to be a genius to reach 90+ marks, while technical non-essay based subjects found in STEM have no upper or lower bound, meaning that you don't need to be the next Einstein to hit 100/100 in an assignment but you won't be able to ******** your way to a pass.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is it worth doing an arts/social science/humanities degree?
- STEM vs non-STEM salaries
- True or false - non-STEM degrees are a waste of time?
- What should I take as a 4th A-level?
- ..
- STEM Paid Internships this summer (i’m 18, haven’t started uni)
- STEM is not the future !
- Is Politics and Economics at LSE considered a quantitative degree
- Which of these A-Level combinations would be the best to study a law degree?
- Economics vs Computer science vs Math degree
- Ppe vs chemistry
- Wondering what I should do after alevels.
- Mid Universities
- Can I get into Liverpool?
- Is
- University Tuition Fees and Employment Prospects
- Is anyone doing Global Humanitarian Studies at UCL?
- Pharmacology Vs Biochemistry
- a level choices
- Is a Politics and Economics degree quantitative enough to become an actuary
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
